ORDER :

Heard Sri A. Nagendra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for third respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking following direction :

“……to issue a Writ Order or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a To call for the records pertaining to the Order Dated 18/06/2021 in ST No. 344 of 2021 C/945/2019 by confirmed the Order Dated 11/02/2021 held by the Respondent No. 2 herein and set them aside b To direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to continue the name of the Petitioner in the Revenue Records in respect of the land to an extent of Ac 10 Guntas in Sy No. 25/A situated at Dasnapur Village Mavala Mandal Adilabad District c To award costs By holding the action of the Respondents for cancellation of mutation as bad illegal irrational arbitrary discriminatory void violative of the Article 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India and pass ….”

3. According to petitioner, his grand father late Are Nana S/o. late Are Poshetty was owner of land to an extent of Acs.6.08 guntas in Survey No.25/A, Dasnapur village, Mavala mandal, Adilabad district and erroneously less extent of land was shown in the revenue records depriving valuable right to property of the petitioner on the land owned by his grand father. He therefore submitted application to the Tahsildar to correct the clerical error in the revenue records. In the year 2016, the Tahsildar was very benevolent in accepting the said request and passed orders directing correction of revenue entries to reflect land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas in the name of petitioner. This correction was challenged before the Appellate Authority under Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). On constituting of the Special Tribunals, it was placed before the second respondent Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal by order dated 11.2.2021 allowed the appeal and ordered cancellation of mutation granted in favour of the petitioner. This order was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.7143 of 2021 primarily on the ground that Special Tribunal did not give opportunity of hearing before deciding the appeal. Accordingly, the order of the Special Tribunal was set aside and matter was remanded to the Special Tribunal for fresh hearing. Consequently, the Special Tribunal took up the matter again and passed orders on 18.6.2021 confirming the earlier decision setting aside the order of the Tahsildar.

4. According to learned counsel for petitioner, in the Pahani for the year 1968-69 erroneously less extent of land was shown in the name of grand father of petitioner as against his entitlement causing hardship and suffering to the petitioner and his family. Having come to know that an erroneous entry was made and it was purely a clerical error, petitioner applied to the Tahsildar to correct the clerical error. The Tahsildar noted that on verifying the record, he found that late Are Nana was owner of land to an extent of Ac.6.08 guntas, whereas in the Pahani for the year 1968-69 it was shown as Acs.4.39 guntas only and holding that it was a clerical error passed orders dated 12.4.2016.

5. The Special Tribunal noticed that Tahsildar undertook correction of alleged clerical error made in the year 1968-69 after more than 40 years without any justification. It was observed that land to an extent of Acs.4.38 guntas was sold out by way of registered sale deed and land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas was acquired by the Government in the year 1983. Thereafter, no land was left to the account of family of Are Nana, and therefore claim of the petitioner that there was erroneous entry in the revenue records, is not valid and allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 12.4.2016.

6. Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for 3rd respondent submitted that father of petitioner sold Ac.4.38 guntas land by way of registered sale deed on 5.6.1974 and rema